I ’ . • • I OSRO/j Union Vol. 5. No. 45. GASTONIA, N. C., NOVEMBER 9, 1911 One Dollar a Year A —To Curtail and Control Production of Crops Por the Market. By J. Z. Green. IMITED PRODUCTION is a mod ern business principle that underlies the safety and success of every bus iness profession. Limiting supply to ^’'iual demand is the scientific business prin- ^T^e that stands between success and failure. ^^^^mited production, without regard for de- would bring financial disaster to the *^‘^f>ufacturer, and unlimited distribution, ''^'thout regard for demand, would wreck and the biggest and strongest mercantile en- Pnse on earth. All classes of manufac- Oil ^ ^^ticijiate the demands for their vari- products and they then produce only is meet the probable demands. That the ^ iritelligent plan of production and it is plan. Following this plan out, con- the Rested toj. rnarkets from abnormallly large fac- ^ ^ Outputs are prevented and bankruptcy ued. Limiting production to actual nor- Prod^^*^^^^ insures profitable prices to the ^an ^oer and makes his business safe, per- ^ttai '^ut and profitable. This result can be ‘^ed in uiod other way except through the i^usiness principle of limited produc- riier*the entire professional and com- ^ical^*^^ ^orld puts into action as far as prac- of ^^'ofessional men limit the production L, to actual demand for the same isiiiess •^iiited liii->.v T"" reason that is behind the idea of Wd P^o^^uction with the manufacturers, ^^ud ^^^ooimend and advocate and de- of limited production of farm variQ-^^^^’ '’^*-‘^oded for the market, I am ad- ory ^ow or untried plan, no new the- Uew ^^onomics. I admit that it is, indeed, but; tl ^PP^’od to the business of farming, sigdt(.|j^ fuct that we haven’t been far- Uess ^’^pugh to apply it in our own busi- home-owners are becoming year fewer in the rural districts every' our Q have been made to suffer for ^^Ve ''^usteful industry and why others euergy^^^^*^' the result of our toil and our economies in production, on n ^"‘^ve competitive produc- ^e farm after it has been eliminated ever ^Ise? Why should we waste our produce and gather a prices below cost of P^'^clurfi increasing the aggregate Of hogs for the market the price of hogs declines so that the consumer gets the benefit of the increased production, doesn’t it result in loss to the producer? In the aggregate, if ten million bales of cotton for the market will bring two hundred mil lion dojlars more money to the producers of cotton than fourteen million bales will bring, isn’t it business suicide to produce fourteen million bales? “The world needs the cotton,” you say? If farmers find that they can’t get a profitable price for cotton unless they produce less than the world needs, isn’t it their moral duty to go ahead and produce less than the world needs and thereby protect their own interests and the interests of their fam ilies? If they don’t guard their interests, who will? Is it right for a farmer to carry his wife and children into the fields to make big crops of cotton and tobacco when it is a fixed law of economics that prices decline in proportion as the market is congested by ab normally large outputs ? Isn’t it a mistake that almost amounts to a crime for farmers to keep their children out of school and put them into the fields to depress prices of farm products and let them grow up in ignorance and become an easy prey for superior intel ligence? Talk about tragedy, but here it is, written in scarlet, in millions of Southern farm houses. Child slavery in cotton mills is, indeed deplorable and it ought to be pro hibited by the strong arm of law, but it is no worse than child slavery in cotton and tobacco fields. In fact, child slavery in the cotton fields is a double tragedy, for it results both in perpetuating the curse of ignorance on the farm and also brings ruinously low prices for the very thing which the children are kept out of school to produce! If the white children of the South had been kept out of the cotton fields this year the cot ton crop would have been reduced approxi mately two million bales. And again, if Sou thern white farmers had all planted for a living at home, thus correcting a suicidal economic error that has cost the South more than any other, the cotton crop would have been reduced another two million bales. These two legitimate and commendable business methods of limiting cotton production would have saved this year one-fourth the labor and energ}' that has been criminally wasted. This same principle of limiting production will ap ply to any other crops grown especially for the market, and unless farmers wake up and be come practical business men, as well as good farmers, and co-operate to control the output of products intended for the market, the classes who do business under the principle of 'imited production and controlled distribution will eventually own all the farm lands of this country and the masses in the rural districts will be reduced to tenants. No class of peo ple who enter into deadly competition with e.ich other, both in the production and sale of their products, can reasonably expect anything but ultimate industrial slavery. I am fully conscious that the argument I am producing here is somewhat in conflict with the work of well-meaning employees of the agricultural departments who have en couraged us to make competitive business war against each other to see which can succeed in doing most to increase the aggregate produc tion of farm products for the market. Their efforts to correct the great and far-reaching error of importing food products to consume on the farm is commendable. Their idea of soil improvement is also right and proper, if they also advise the reduction of acreage and shorter hours of labor on the farm as a safe guard against congested markets and low prices, but if the aim and idea is to increase the aggregate production of products for the market by improving all the acres now in cul tivation, they are unconsciously engaged in a task, which if consummated, means nothing but disaster and low prices to the very class they seek to help, and it brings corresponding prosperity to the inhabitants of towns and cities who buy our products cheaply just in proportion as the aggregate output of our farm products increase. 1 am also mindful of the fact that in ad vocating controlled production and controlled distribution of farm products I am contending for the same principle that “trusts” and com bines use to fix prices upon their products, and without which they could never succeed. If I am criticised for this by “trust busters” I respectfully remind them that no “trust” has ever yet been “busted” by legislation and we are getting tired waiting for relief from that jource. The idea of breaking up “trusts” and combines by law now is an empty dream. Nothing short of the application of the prin ciple of socialism will do it, and this country isn t ready for that yet. Besides, any act of legislation that would prevent “trusts” from controlling the output of their products and (Continuecl on page nine) 1 ■ ' I -1 iH

Page Text

This is the computer-generated OCR text representation of this newspaper page. It may be empty, if no text could be automatically recognized. This data is also available in Plain Text and XML formats.

Return to page view